C'mon Inda, acts like these have been going on since oraganized law enforcement was even contemplated. They have new tools now whose place needs to figured in, as always in the old security vs privacy context. Nothing new. More public awareness of actions taken by our officials and a whole new technology to deal with. The LAST of our reasons to rebel, in my opinion.

this issue has been all over the news here lately too. it doesnt bother me too much but then I dont personally have a "big brother complex" if the police want to look into my doings ...well they can look all they like. if Im being a bad boy well I can expect to get a kick up the butt. if my nose is clean they have bigger fishes to fry.how do you think the powers that be catch the pervs of this world???by looking at what goes on on the internet and acting on itif the powers that be had looked a little harder pre 9/11.....need I say more???if you walk along the sidewalk dragging a stick against the yard fence the dog will bark,if you dont it wont.if you think you arent being listened in on or this post being read/monitors you are sadly mistaken, wake up and smell the dog turds the horse has well and truely bolted no point in slamming the gate shut now.have you ever listened in on an electronic scanner???how about taken your cordless phone for a drive around till it started to work again on someone else s line.anything you do electronically can be got at.

Elvis Kiwi wrote:this issue has been all over the news here lately too. it doesnt bother me too much but then I dont personally have a "big brother complex" if the police want to look into my doings ...well they can look all they like. if Im being a bad boy well I can expect to get a kick up the butt. if my nose is clean they have bigger fishes to fry.how do you think the powers that be catch the pervs of this world???by looking at what goes on on the internet and acting on itif the powers that be had looked a little harder pre 9/11.....need I say more???if you walk along the sidewalk dragging a stick against the yard fence the dog will bark,if you dont it wont.if you think you arent being listened in on or this post being read/monitors you are sadly mistaken, wake up and smell the dog turds the horse has well and truely bolted no point in slamming the gate shut now.have you ever listened in on an electronic scanner???how about taken your cordless phone for a drive around till it started to work again on someone else s line.anything you do electronically can be got at.

Pretty much as I see it Elvis. We know the capabilities of electronic eavesdropping. Corporations have been doing it for retail advantage for years. I really don't think I do anything that would warrant surveillance by anyone. If they attempt it, they had better have a damn good dose of patience, because their oversight will be as exciting as watching "The Bachelorette" with your wife. Now, if we consider it as always an "us against them" condition, I can understand concern. I simply don't feel that way about our government. Transgressions? Of course. There are transgressions occurring in the business of trying to run a fruit stand. But does it affect me if more is known about me? I hope not. I would be guilty of something if such were the case.

What are you talking about Inda? People are angry. You just hang out with people that given the choice would rather be mad at what they are told to be angry at - instead of what with they should be angry.

Elvis Kiwi wrote:this issue has been all over the news here lately too. it doesnt bother me too much but then I dont personally have a "big brother complex" if the police want to look into my doings ...well they can look all they like.

Elvis Kiwi wrote:this issue has been all over the news here lately too. it doesnt bother me too much but then I dont personally have a "big brother complex" if the police want to look into my doings ...well they can look all they like.

Elvis Kiwi wrote:this issue has been all over the news here lately too. it doesnt bother me too much but then I dont personally have a "big brother complex" if the police want to look into my doings ...well they can look all they like.

You should resurrect King George III so you can lick his boots.

Exactly. Well stated slow. This is one of a few topics you and I see eye to eye on. I've stated it before and I'll state it again.

In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.

In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.

Elvis Kiwi wrote:this issue has been all over the news here lately too. it doesnt bother me too much but then I dont personally have a "big brother complex" if the police want to look into my doings ...well they can look all they like. if Im being a bad boy well I can expect to get a kick up the butt. if my nose is clean they have bigger fishes to fry.how do you think the powers that be catch the pervs of this world???by looking at what goes on on the internet and acting on itif the powers that be had looked a little harder pre 9/11.....need I say more???if you walk along the sidewalk dragging a stick against the yard fence the dog will bark,if you dont it wont.if you think you arent being listened in on or this post being read/monitors you are sadly mistaken, wake up and smell the dog turds the horse has well and truely bolted no point in slamming the gate shut now.have you ever listened in on an electronic scanner???how about taken your cordless phone for a drive around till it started to work again on someone else s line.anything you do electronically can be got at.

Pretty much as I see it Elvis. We know the capabilities of electronic eavesdropping. Corporations have been doing it for retail advantage for years. I really don't think I do anything that would warrant surveillance by anyone. If they attempt it, they had better have a damn good dose of patience, because their oversight will be as exciting as watching "The Bachelorette" with your wife. Now, if we consider it as always an "us against them" condition, I can understand concern. I simply don't feel that way about our government. Transgressions? Of course. There are transgressions occurring in the business of trying to run a fruit stand. But does it affect me if more is known about me? I hope not. I would be guilty of something if such were the case.

You two are complete idiots. Free peoples should not be watched by their government. In a free society, we don't have overseers. It opens the door to oppression and tyranny. No free people should have to live in fear of the misdeeds of their government. Only children and fools would believe the government wouldn't abuse this power regularly. I haven't even addressed the fact that I as well as most Americans value our privacy. It is nobody's business but mine how I live my life. The government can piss off.

In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.

Then you should take care what you write. You stated otherwise. Do you prefer rubber or leather soles?

In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.

Spot on again by Peggy Noonan of the WSJ. I'd love to bang that silver fox. She's sexy and hot for her age.

Peggy Noonan, WSJ wrote:Why Christie Is Wrong

I can’t shake my dismay at Gov. Chris Christie’s comments, 12 days ago, on those who question and challenge what we know or think we do of the American national security state.

Speaking at an Aspen Institute gathering attended by major Republican Party donors, a venue at which you really don’t want to make news, Christie jumped at the chance to speak on the tension between civil liberties and government surveillance. He apparently doesn’t see any tension.

Christie doesn’t like seeing the nature and extent of government surveillance being questioned or doubted. He doesn’t like “this strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now.” In fact, it reflects “a very dangerous thought.” He said: “These esoteric, intellectual debates—I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation.” Those who challenge surveillance programs may come to regret it: “The next attack that comes, that kills thousands of Americans as a result, people are going to be looking back on the people having this intellectual debate and wondering whether they put—” Here, according to Jonathan Martin’s report in the New York Times, Christie cut himself off.

The audience—again, including GOP moneymen, at the tony Aspen Institute—was, according to Martin, enthralled. They loved it.

Libertarians and many others did not. I did not.

Stipulated: Christie was speaking off the cuff, not in a prepared address that had been thought through but in Q&A in front of a supportive audience. Politicians can get goosey in circumstances like that.

But Christie seized on the topic, as Martin noted, addressed it colorfully and bluntly, and knew what he thought. And in the days since he hasn’t walked it back.

So you have to take seriously what he said.

To call growing concerns about the size, depth, history, ways and operations of our now-huge national-security operation “esoteric” or merely abstract is, simply, absurd. Our federal government is involved in massive data collection that apparently includes a database of almost every phone call made in the U.S. The adequacy of oversight for this system is at best unclear. The courts involved are shadowed in secrecy and controversy. Is it really wrong or foolhardy or unacceptably thoughtful to wonder if the surveillance apparatus is excessive, or will be abused, or will erode, or perhaps in time end, any expectation of communications privacy held by honest citizens?

It is not. These are right and appropriate concerns, very American ones.

Consider just two stories from the past few days. The Wall Street Journal’s Jennifer Valentino-Devries and Danny Yadron had a stunning piece Friday that touches on the technological aspect of what our government can now do. The FBI is able to remotely activate microphone on phones running Android software. They can now record conversations in this way. They can do the same with microphones in laptops. They can get to you in a lot of ways! Does this make you nervous? If not, why not?

Reuters has a piece just today reporting that data gathered by the National Security Agency has been shared with the Drug Enforcement Administration. The agency that is supposed to be in charge of counterterrorism is sharing data with an agency working in the area of domestic criminal investigations.

Luckily Lois Lerner is on leave, so the IRS isn’t involved yet.

The concerns of normal Americans about the new world we’re entering—the world where Big Brother seems inexorably to be coming to life and we are all, at least potentially Winston Smith—is not only legitimate, it is wise and historically grounded.

And these concerns are not confined to a group of abstract intellectuals debating how many pixels can dance on the head of a pin. Gallup in June had a majority of Americans, 53%, disapproving of NSA surveillance programs, with only 37% approving of the NSA’s efforts to “compile telephone call logs and Internet communications.” And the poll found the most intense opposition to the programs coming from Republicans, who disapproved by almost 2 to 1.

Rasmussen, at roughly the same time, asked the following question: “The government has been secretly collecting the phone records of millions of Americans for national security purposes regardless of whether there is any suspicion of wrongdoing. Do you favor or oppose the government’s secret collecting of these phone records?” Fifty-nine percent of respondents opposed the collecting telephone records of individuals not suspected of doing anything wrong.

A Fox News poll had 61% disapproving how the administration “is handling the government’s classified surveillance program that collects the phone and Internet records of U.S. citizens.”

So Christie is wrong that concerns and reservations about surveillance are the province of intellectuals and theorists—they’re not. He’s wrong that their concerns are merely abstract—they’re concrete. Americans don’t want to be listened in to, and they don’t want their emails read by strangers, especially the government. His stand isn’t even politically shrewd—it needlessly offends sincere skeptics and isn’t the position of the majority of his party, I suppose with the exception of big ticket donors in Aspen.

And Christie’s argument wasn’t even…

In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.

vincentpa wrote:In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.

probable cause is a very very good pointnow how do you get probable cause to look into a matter in the first place???if some low life is down loading kiddy porn and the powers that be find that out by checking the internet history. that my good fellow is probable cause (in my opinion) to have a closer look at just what the deviant is getting up to.if the police take a case to court they still have to be able to justify all actions to a judge and jury ...do they not????is the trail cam you have watching your hunting area to see whats going on legal??? or is it spying and invading someones privacy...you never know who might want to be doing what in the bushes this is a controversial issue and mostly puts the 2 sides of the fence miles apart...maybe its a big red herring to stop us looking at what else is going on in the houses of power???

Elvis Kiwi wrote:probable cause is a very very good pointnow how do you get probable cause to look into a matter in the first place???if some low life is down loading kiddy porn and the powers that be find that out by checking the internet history. that my good fellow is probable cause (in my opinion) to have a closer look at just what the deviant is getting up to.if the police take a case to court they still have to be able to justify all actions to a judge and jury ...do they not????is the trail cam you have watching your hunting area to see whats going on legal??? or is it spying and invading someones privacy...you never know who might want to be doing what in the bushes this is a controversial issue and mostly puts the 2 sides of the fence miles apart...maybe its a big red herring to stop us looking at what else is going on in the houses of power???

So you like police states? Ask German jews how that worked out for them....

The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Elvis Kiwi wrote:probable cause is a very very good pointnow how do you get probable cause to look into a matter in the first place???if some low life is down loading kiddy porn and the powers that be find that out by checking the internet history. that my good fellow is probable cause (in my opinion) to have a closer look at just what the deviant is getting up to.if the police take a case to court they still have to be able to justify all actions to a judge and jury ...do they not????is the trail cam you have watching your hunting area to see whats going on legal??? or is it spying and invading someones privacy...you never know who might want to be doing what in the bushes this is a controversial issue and mostly puts the 2 sides of the fence miles apart...maybe its a big red herring to stop us looking at what else is going on in the houses of power???

Without probable cause, everyone is a suspect and the government would be free to harass, detain, oppress or persecute at its whim. Probable cause protects free citizens from a tyrannical government. We know criminals will go free because of it. It's a trade off we are willing to make to ensure our liberty. Probable cause was written into our Constitution as a direct reaction to the open and universal warrants issued by George III on the colonies before our revolution.

Sent from my iPhone 5, which sucks my cojones. Don't buy one.

In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.

Elvis Kiwi wrote:probable cause is a very very good pointnow how do you get probable cause to look into a matter in the first place???if some low life is down loading kiddy porn and the powers that be find that out by checking the internet history. that my good fellow is probable cause (in my opinion) to have a closer look at just what the deviant is getting up to.if the police take a case to court they still have to be able to justify all actions to a judge and jury ...do they not????is the trail cam you have watching your hunting area to see whats going on legal??? or is it spying and invading someones privacy...you never know who might want to be doing what in the bushes this is a controversial issue and mostly puts the 2 sides of the fence miles apart...maybe its a big red herring to stop us looking at what else is going on in the houses of power???

Without probable cause, everyone is a suspect and the government would be free to harass, detain, oppress or persecute at its whim. Probable cause protects free citizens from a tyrannical government. We know criminals will go free because of it. It's a trade off we are willing to make to ensure our liberty. Probable cause was written into our Constitution as a direct reaction to the open and universal warrants issued by George III on the colonies before our revolution.

Sent from my iPhone 5, which sucks my cojones. Don't buy one.

sounds like how our Gov has been acting lately. the IRS and NSA are a prime examples

"In a time of universal deceit-telling the truth is a revolutionary act"George Orwell

Elvis Kiwi wrote:this issue has been all over the news here lately too. it doesnt bother me too much but then I dont personally have a "big brother complex" if the police want to look into my doings ...well they can look all they like. if Im being a bad boy well I can expect to get a kick up the butt. if my nose is clean they have bigger fishes to fry.how do you think the powers that be catch the pervs of this world???by looking at what goes on on the internet and acting on itif the powers that be had looked a little harder pre 9/11.....need I say more???if you walk along the sidewalk dragging a stick against the yard fence the dog will bark,if you dont it wont.if you think you arent being listened in on or this post being read/monitors you are sadly mistaken, wake up and smell the dog turds the horse has well and truely bolted no point in slamming the gate shut now.have you ever listened in on an electronic scanner???how about taken your cordless phone for a drive around till it started to work again on someone else s line.anything you do electronically can be got at.

Pretty much as I see it Elvis. We know the capabilities of electronic eavesdropping. Corporations have been doing it for retail advantage for years. I really don't think I do anything that would warrant surveillance by anyone. If they attempt it, they had better have a damn good dose of patience, because their oversight will be as exciting as watching "The Bachelorette" with your wife. Now, if we consider it as always an "us against them" condition, I can understand concern. I simply don't feel that way about our government. Transgressions? Of course. There are transgressions occurring in the business of trying to run a fruit stand. But does it affect me if more is known about me? I hope not. I would be guilty of something if such were the case.

You two are complete idiots. Free peoples should not be watched by their government. In a free society, we don't have overseers. It opens the door to oppression and tyranny. No free people should have to live in fear of the misdeeds of their government. Only children and fools would believe the government wouldn't abuse this power regularly. I haven't even addressed the fact that I as well as most Americans value our privacy. It is nobody's business but mine how I live my life. The government can piss off.

Elvis Kiwi wrote:probable cause is a very very good pointnow how do you get probable cause to look into a matter in the first place???if some low life is down loading kiddy porn and the powers that be find that out by checking the internet history. that my good fellow is probable cause (in my opinion) to have a closer look at just what the deviant is getting up to.if the police take a case to court they still have to be able to justify all actions to a judge and jury ...do they not????is the trail cam you have watching your hunting area to see whats going on legal??? or is it spying and invading someones privacy...you never know who might want to be doing what in the bushes this is a controversial issue and mostly puts the 2 sides of the fence miles apart...maybe its a big red herring to stop us looking at what else is going on in the houses of power???

So you like police states? Ask German jews how that worked out for them....

that is a police state? jesus. again, i thought i and my friends were paranoid before DHC. you guys crack me up.

When you have a government watching citizens activities and monitoring them without probable cause, then yes that is a police state. I'd rather be a little paranoid and prepared, than live in some dream land where I can completely ignore what's going on.

Last edited by The Confederate on Wed Aug 07, 2013 8:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The Confederate wrote:When you have a government watching citizens activities and monitoring them without probable cause, then yes that is a police state. I'd rather be a little paranoid and prepared, then live in some dream land where I can completely ignore what's going on.

^^^^^^^@Ohio, what he said.

The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Elvis Kiwi wrote:this issue has been all over the news here lately too. it doesnt bother me too much but then I dont personally have a "big brother complex" if the police want to look into my doings ...well they can look all they like.

You should resurrect King George III so you can lick his boots.

Exactly. Well stated slow. This is one of a few topics you and I see eye to eye on. I've stated it before and I'll state it again.

In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.

It is the shared experiences of companionship that make loss bearable.RIP Orion, May where you are be full of Rabbits.

when you start explaining what you're seeing, you see what you've been looking at